I waited five hours to get medical treatment at Mamelodi Regional Hospital in Tshwane, with a broken wrist and an injured head.
On 19 February 2025 at about 4pm I was walking in Mamelodi West. I was on a journalism assignment, heading to informal settlements that are prone to flooding.
The street was quiet, but I felt safe because I had walked there before. Suddenly, a car stopped in front of me, and two men got out of it and tried to rob me. I ran away and jumped into the stormwater passage, but slipped and fell, hitting my face against the concrete.
When I managed to stand up, I was dizzy and my vision was blurred. I was drenched in dirty water and my belongings — my cell phone, my wallet and my camera bag — were wet.
The men who attacked me were no longer on the street. My right wrist was swollen and painful, an injury above my eye was bleeding profusely, and my head was aching. But I was relieved that I was still alive and I still had all my belongings.
I decided not to call an ambulance, but to walk about 800 metres to Mamelodi Regional Hospital.
I went to the casualty unit, expecting that I would receive treatment quickly. At the front desk, a clerk took more than 20 minutes to fill in my file. He said the hospital’s computer system was offline and he had to fill in the file with a pen. I then went to sit at the reception area. My head was aching and I repeatedly requested headache tablets from the nurses, who gave me two tablets after 30 minutes. But my pain lingered.
The wound on my face was still bleeding and my wrist was swollen and bent. About 40 minutes after my arrival, a nurse cleaned my wound and wrapped it with a bandage, stopping the bleeding.
At about 8pm, a man sitting next to me said he had arrived at the hospital at 2pm after falling from scaffolding at a construction site. He was still waiting for his X-ray results.
I went for X-rays and long afterwards, at about 10pm, I had a cast put on my wrist. I was given injections which helped with the pain. I was discharged at 11pm and went home.
In September last year, the Gauteng MEC for Health Nomantu Nkomo-Ralehoko said that Mamelodi Regional Hospital was the first hospital in Gauteng ready to meet National Health Insurance (NHI) standards.
In response to GroundUp’s questions, Gauteng Department of Health spokesperson Motalatale Modiba said a triage priority system is followed at the hospital, meaning that four patients with critical wounds that required life-saving emergencies were attended to first. He said this affected my waiting time for wound care and the application of a cast.
“You were classified as Orange P2, that is a person who is in a stable condition and is not in any immediate danger, but requires observation,” said Modiba.
“At the time of your arrival, the casualty unit had 31 other patients to be seen. These include four critical cases in the resuscitation unit, ten trauma cases, 16 medical cases and four pediatric cases,” he said.
Modiba confirmed that the hospital’s computer system was offline when I arrived.
I asked Modiba whether the Gauteng Department of Health can still confidently regard this hospital as NHI-ready despite the slow delivery of medical services I experienced. Modiba said: “Mamelodi Regional Hospital remains committed to provide best healthcare services.”
Recent media reports over the future of NHI have been contradictory and hard to make sense of. Spotlight chased up those in a position to know where things stand – it seems the ANC has not in fact made any major concessions on NHI. There is however agreement that medical schemes won’t be phased out in the next few years, something that likely wouldn’t have happened in any case given the poor state of the economy and the long timeline for NHI implementation.
The ANC is holding firm on the NHI Act with Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi and the National Health Department “unaware of any compromise deals”, and the President’s office saying engagement with Business Unity SA (BUSA) is “ongoing”.
In spite of recent media reports to the contrary, neither President Cyril Ramaphosa nor Motsoaledi have conceded to any BUSA proposals on amending sections of the NHI Act. BUSA is the country’s apex business association and represents the banking, mining, and retail sectors, including the Health Funders Association, the Hospital Association of South Africa, and the Innovative Pharmaceuticals Association of South Africa.
BUSA, and several other critics of the Act, have argued that provisions should be removed that prohibit medical schemes from covering any health services covered by the NHI fund. The NHI Act has not yet been promulgated. If promulgated in its current form, the role of medical schemes will be dramatically reduced.
The DA’s spokesperson on health, Michele Clarke, told Spotlight that at the establishment of the recent GNU-convened Medium Term Development Plan (MTDP), agreement was reached that the health department would “not de-establish medical aids during the current government’s term of office”.
Spotlight understands that this amounts to a commitment not to promulgate the relevant sections of the Act in the next few years – it does not amount to a commitment to remove those sections from the act.
This is a pyrrhic victory, given that the implementation of NHI was always going to be a long-term project and that even in the most pro-NHI scenarios, the effective phasing out of medical schemes in the next few years was highly unlikely. There are also four legal challenges being brought on procedural and constitutional grounds that may further delay things.
Mist of confusion
Last week’s mist of confusion lifted when both the Presidency and Dr Stavros Nicolaou, speaking to Spotlight on behalf of BUSA, said no concessions have been made on NHI. Motsoaledi’s office also flatly denied reports that there had been any ANC or GNU compromise to remove parts of the NHI legislation that would render medical aids almost obsolete. The Spokesperson for the National Department of Health, Foster Mohale, added that he was unaware of any MTDP agreement on medical aids.
Vincent Magwenya, a spokesperson for the president, told Spotlight he was “unaware of any process leading to the amendment of the NHI Act”, claiming that Maropene Ramokgopa, Minister in the Presidency responsible for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, was misquoted last week.
She was quoted in news reports as saying the ANC and the DA had reached an “unofficial understanding on the NHI” following an ANC compromise to remove parts of the NHI legislation that would collapse medical aids. “Ms Ramokgopa tells me she was misreported,” said Magwenya.
Chris Laubscher, the DA’s communications head, told Spotlight: “There was never confirmation by [DA leader who is also Minister of Agriculture] John Steenhuisen that the NHI in its entirety had been excluded from the government’s Medium Term Development Plan.”
The new MTDP has not yet been made public.
Charity Ophelia McCord, the spokesperson for Steenhuisen, said the MTDP had yet to be completed and passed, but was on the Cabinet agenda for Wednesday, February 12. Spotlight was not able to verify if this was discussed.
Meanwhile, Mohale said both the health department and the minister were unaware of any compromise deal, “thus the implementation of the NHI Act continues as per the plans”.
Cannot be changed over night
If at some point the NHI Act is to be amended, the process is likely to take several years, according to Professor Olive Shisana, Social Policy Special Advisor to Ramaphosa on the NHI and health systems strengthening.
“Any process for changing an enacted law normally goes through Parliament, including an amendment from the executive,” Shisana explained. “There would first have to be consultation with the public before it even got to Parliament. Then, when it gets to Parliament there’s more consultation, this time in each of the provincial legislatures, after which it goes to the Portfolio Committee on Health which also takes written submissions. The committee then decides whether to submit it to the National Assembly. If the National Assembly passes it, it goes to the National Council of Provinces which considers each province’s input. Government took five years to get this NHI Act in place, so you can imagine it might take about as long to get parts of it excised or reversed. That’s the normal route it would have to take, I’m afraid.”
However, both the DA and BUSA are adamant that the Act needs to be changed.
Clarke said the DA remained of the view that “multiple parts of the [Act] remain problematic and dangerous for the future of healthcare in South Africa”.
She added: “The DA wants the model underpinning the NHI to be completely reworked and multiple problematic clauses amended by Parliament to ensure that the healthcare model is protected and strengthened.”
BUSA met with Ramaphosa in September last year and tabled a proposal which included striking Section 33 – which effectively collapses private medical aids as they now exist, creating a single national fund – from the NHI Act. It also calls for the implementation of mandatory health insurance which it is argued will take pressure off the public health system and bolster existing medical aids. The president has since passed it on to Motsoaledi’s office.
Neither BUSA nor the responding government parties have given any indication of when they might next meet or pronounce on the proposal.
Rejection of NHI
Meanwhile, the United Healthcare Access Coalition (UHAC), a grouping claiming to represent 80% of all private healthcare stakeholders, lodged a detailed alternative proposal with the president’s office. This entirely rejects the NHI and focuses on rehabilitating the healthcare system based on a synthesis of far-reaching recommendations which various commissions and experts have made over several decades, including the Taylor Commission and the more recent Health Market Inquiry (HMI).
In January this year, Motsoaledi promised to pronounce on the implementation of the HMI recommendations from 2019 “within weeks”. As reported by Business Day, there indeed seems to now finally be some movement on the HMI recommendations with Minister of Trade Industry and Competition Parks Tau having gazetted an exemption that newly opens the door for tariff setting in the private health sector – a move that may help rein in runaway healthcare costs.
UHAC spokesperson Dr Aslam Dasoo described their report as “everything that the NHI is not”.
“Our health pathway requires easy legislative changes and is within current fiscal constraints. We can start the process immediately. It requires a change in governance structure of the provincial health systems where politicians relinquish all direct authority over health care institutions and instead focus on strategic policy,” he previously told Spotlight.
In an online briefing launching the UHAC on Wednesday, February 12, Dasoo warned all parties in the GNU to “consider their options” as they would be “held jointly responsible” should the NHI be implemented to the detriment of South Africa.
Another UHAC executive member and CEO of the SA Private Practitioners Forum, Dr Simon Strachan, said the focus of their universal healthcare plan was on providing equitable, implementable, and sustainable healthcare.
“We need to ensure that those who can look after themselves, do (financially), while subsidising those who cannot afford to. It’s one hundred percent dependent on improving health service delivery within the public sector and creating a competitive market for people to decide where and how they access healthcare,” he said.
The UHAC coalition includes NGO’s, patient advocacy groups, the SA Medical Association, the South African Private Practitioners Forum, and the Progressive Healthcare Forum.
Asked what UHAC’s “Plan B” was if they “hit a brick wall” on their detailed proposals, Dasoo said the GNU was obliged to respond to such a widely representative proposal “otherwise they’re not fit to govern”.
Referring to the ANC, he said the party “neglected the two major healthcare systems, allowing real degradation of the public sector and an unregulated private sector with no market growth, resulting in prices going up”. He added: “If there’s any brick wall, it’s the one they’ve built.”
The Hospital Association of South Africa (HASA) remains unequivocally committed to working with all stakeholders to build a healthcare system that sustainably benefits all citizens of South Africa and urges all involved parties to engage in a solution-oriented approach.
HASA believes the National Health Insurance is neither sustainable nor affordable and that dialogue and collaboration between all stakeholders is critical to finding and developing solutions to achieve universal health coverage.
HASA has thus far deferred filing a legal challenge to the NHI Act as it firmly believes that sustainable and affordable solutions, to achieve universal health coverage for all South Africans, are within reach. However, the government’s lack of response to several constructive and practical proposals, including those of Business Unity South Africa (BUSA), and the Minister of Health’s recent public statements concerning the NHI, including regarding the imminent publication of NHI regulations, have necessitated that HASA move forward with its legal challenge to the NHI legislation.
Even though HASA has decided to proceed with legal action, it remains hopeful that the Presidency will respond positively to the constructive proposals that have been made.
HASA remains open to engaging with the Government on the way forward in parallel to the legal process. Reiterating the time-critical nature of the matter, Melanie Da Costa, Chairperson of HASA, today said, “We remain firmly committed to participating constructively while the legal process unfolds. As an organisation, we have always preferred to resolve matters through dialogue, and we believe that effective healthcare solutions are urgently needed and achievable through a reasonable and collaborative approach.”
Whether or not the ANC and DA can find common ground on the future of medical schemes is set to be a major test of South Africa’s Government of National Unity. Ahead of a Cabinet lekgotla where the issue is expected to be on the agenda, momentum has been gathering behind a compromise option.
Little more than a month after President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act into law in May last year, the ANC entered into a government of national unity (GNU) following a large drop in their share of the vote in South Africa’s 2024 elections. This raised questions over the future of NHI, given that the second largest party in the GNU, the DA, is vehemently opposed to NHI.
The NHI Act has not yet been promulgated and could be amended if the ANC and DA agree to do so. But whether the parties can agree to a compromise remains unclear, especially since there appears to be a hardline faction in the ANC that is committed to NHI as currently encapsulated in the NHI Act. As it stands, the Act foresees a dramatically reduced role for medical schemes whereby they will not be allowed to cover services that are already covered by the NHI fund.
Also in play are at least four High Court challenges to NHI legislation – by the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) challenging Ramaphosa’s assent to the NHI Bill just before the elections last year, Solidarity, and the SA Private Practitioners Forum, both claiming government overreach which impacts on people’s right to choose their own health cover and run their own businesses. The South African Medical Association (SAMA) is also preparing a legal challenge.
Two proposals
Meanwhile, momentum has been growing with two compromise proposals: one from Business Unity South Africa (BUSA), the country’s apex business organisation broadly representing the banking, mining and retail sectors, but more pertinently here, the Health Funders Association, the Hospital Association of South Africa, and the Innovative Pharmaceuticals Association of SA. The other is from the United Healthcare Access Coalition (UHAC), a large coalition of healthcare worker groups including, among others, SAMA, the South African Private Practitioners Forum, and the Progressive Healthcare Forum.
BUSA last year met with Ramaphosa and, on his request, provided a detailed yet currently “confidential” proposal, wanting key sections of the NHI Act amended and/or thrown out to enable medical schemes to remain in play by punting mandatory health insurance.
“The BUSA proposal is being processed by the Department of Health and National Treasury. Once processed, a response to BUSA will be formulated accordingly,” presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya told Spotlight this week.
The fundamental difference between the two objecting groups is that the UHAC thinks the NHI Act should be thrown out completely and replaced with their detailed blueprint, while BUSA wants the existing Act amended to accommodate private funders. In its proposal, the UHAC urges implementation of long delayed fundamental systemic reform in both healthcare sectors to enable what they say would be efficient, pragmatic and more politically neutral, consultation-driven universal healthcare measures.
We understand that in a meeting between the two groups, shortly before BUSA lodged its proposal with the Presidency, not enough common ground could be found to join forces.
But there are significant overlaps in their proposals. Both groupings embrace mandatory health insurance and dismiss a single central fund as envisaged under NHI as dangerous and financially unfeasible.
DA spokesperson for health, Michelle Clarke, said her party backs mandatory insurance. She also said the party agrees with the UHAC proposals – and would not hesitate to mount a legal challenge should the NHI go ahead without substantial amendments.
Mandatory health insurance was part of government’s longer term health reform plans until the pendulum swung in favour of NHI at the ANC’s national conference in Polokwane in 2007 when Jacob Zuma became president of the party. The idea was placed back in the spotlight last September when Dr Richard Friedland, immediate past CEO of the Netcare Hospital Group and a key member of BUSA’s health delegation, made the case for it at the HASA conference.
Under mandatory health insurance, everyone who is in formal employment, or who earns above a certain threshold, would be forced by law to be a member of a medical scheme. This, it is argued, would result in medical scheme membership swelling substantially and pressure being taken off the public healthcare system. It is also expected to result in medical scheme premiums being reduced because more healthy, younger people will join the schemes. People who are unemployed or who cannot afford health insurance will still be taken care of by the public healthcare system, which would also take paying medical aid members.
Friedland said at the time that mandatory healthcare insurance would triple the medical scheme market from 9.2 million to potentially 27.5 million beneficiaries over time and reduce those dependent on the state from 53.8 million to 35.5 million.
This week Friedland declined to reveal the contents of the BUSA proposal, saying it was with Ramaphosa and thus confidential.
Meanwhile, Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi last week rubbished media reports that the cabinet lekgotla scheduled for month end would be taking on board the BUSA proposal. He did however confirm that he will shortly announce which of the far-ranging and long-outstanding recommendations of the Competition Commission’s Health Market Inquiry (HMI) into the private healthcare sector will be implemented, something many have been calling for in recent years.
Far-reaching reforms
Adjunct Professor Alex van den Heever, Chair of Social Security Systems Administration and Management Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand, who with Dr Aslam Dasoo, founder and chair of the Progressive Health Forum, forms part of the UHAC, said their fundamental point of departure is that the status quo is unacceptable.
According to the UHAC report, irregular provincial health expenditure levels provide a proxy indicator for corruption. The combined irregular expenditure for eight of the nine provinces from 2017/18 to 2022/23 consistently averages around 12.3% (around R9 billion per annum) of non-personnel expenditure compared to 0.1% for the DA-run Western Cape.
“The difference in performance between the Western Cape and the other eight provinces is reasonably attributable to governance differences,” the report reads.
Observes Van den Heever: “We’re losing an enormous amount of performance in the public sector because of political appointments into the system. It compromises leadership and results in a massive waste of resources. The Western Cape shows you the difference governance can make.”
He said that in the “dismally” regulated private sector, funding the pooling system was identified as a problem even before 1994, “but you don’t now disrupt the system to amalgamate into a monopoly fund to solve this (i.e. NHI). Risk equalisation would force medical schemes to compete on the value of what they cover, and nobody would be discriminated against in accessing healthcare.”
Van den Heever says the NHI intention to increase taxes and move funding money from the private to the public sector is “unworkable”.
He added: “The way to address pooling problems is to separate pooling from purchasing. The NHI process has pooling and purchasing in the same organisation, centralising everything – which is highly inefficient, unworkable and with negative consequences all the way through.
“The UHAC proposal separates them out with the provinces and medical schemes remaining as purchasers while strategic pooling or resource allocation is a national function. So, risk equalisation and taxation form part of strategic national pooling functions, while the purchasing and provision of health services are protected from political appointments – including national ministers and provincial MECs.”
Dasoo, who is also a founder member of trade union NEHAWU, said the UHAC collaborative proposal draws on all the research developed over several decades including the Taylor Commission, which made recommendations on an effective social security system for South Africa, the HMI, and numerous other official inquiries.
Dasoo described the UHAC report as “everything that the NHI is not. This health pathway requires easy legislative changes and is within current fiscal constraints. We can start the process immediately. It requires a change in governance structure of the provincial health systems where politicians relinquish all direct authority they have over health care institutions and instead focus on strategic policy.”
BHF hearing in March
A spokesperson for the BHF, Zola Mtshiya, confirmed their NHI legal challenge, set for hearing in March, but said the BHF was only invited to sign up to the UHAC proposal after it was made public. The BHF represents most medical aid schemes – except for the largest, Discovery Health.
BHF Managing Director, Dr Katlego Mothudi, said his organisation is “engaging the association [UHAC] on the document”. he added: “We welcome the willingness to collaborate as an industry as strengthening health systems is everybody’s business.”
Cabinet lekgotla next week
Despite all these developments, whether the ANC is open to a potential compromise on NHI remains unclear. On the one hand, the presidency says they have asked Treasury and the Department of Health to consider the BUSA proposal, on the other, Motsoaledi has rubbished suggestions that the ANC’s position on NHI has shifted and appears committed to an NHI system that dramatically limits the role of medical schemes. His position is thus incompatible with that of the DA.
According to media reports, things got very heated between Motsoaledi and DA ministers when NHI and the future role of medical schemes were discussed at a Cabinet meeting last October.
The matter is likely to again be on the agenda at the Cabinet lekgotla set to take place next week.
Asked about how the GNU might eventually influence universal healthcare, Clarke said: “ANC arrogancy has tapered down a lot compared to what I’m used to. There’s a lot more transparency – but we cannot allow for a very badly written law with huge implications for people’s lives and the economy to go ahead.”
Foster Mohale, spokesperson for the national health department, declined to provide comment for this article, referring Spotlight to the Presidency and Motsoaledi. “What I can say is we’re still working on the Health Market Inquiry recommendations and will let you know when there’s an announcement,” he said.
Magwenya did not provide responses to most of Spotlight’s questions, other than saying that both Treasury and the health department are considering the BUSA proposal and confirming that the President had met with BUSA.
AI image made with Gencraft using Quicknews’ prompts.
Quicknews takes a look at some of the big events and concerns that defined healthcare 2024, and looks into its crystal ball identify to new trends and emerging opportunities from various news and opinion pieces. There’s a lot going on right now: the battle to make universal healthcare a reality for South Africans, growing noncommunicable diseases and new technologies and treatments – plus some hope in the fight against HIV and certain other diseases.
1. The uncertainty over NHI will continue
For South Africa, the biggest event in healthcare was the signing into law of the National Health Insurance (NHI) by President Ramaphosa in May 2024, right before the elections. This occurred in the face of stiff opposition from many healthcare associations. It has since been bogged down in legal battles, with a section governing the Certificate of Need to practice recently struck down by the High Court as it infringed on at least six constitutional rights.
Much uncertainty around the NHI has been expressed by various organisation such as the Health Funders Association (HFA). Potential pitfalls and also benefits and opportunities have been highlighted. But the biggest obstacle of all is the sheer cost of the project, estimated at some R1.3 trillion. This would need massive tax increases to fund it – an unworkable solution which would see an extra R37 000 in payroll tax. Modest economic growth of around 1.5% is expected for South Africa in 2025, but is nowhere near creating enough surplus wealth to match the national healthcare of a country like Japan. And yet, amidst all the uncertainty, the healthcare sector is expected to do well in 2025.
Whether the Government of National Unity (GNU) will be able to hammer out a workable path forward for NHI remains an open question, with various parties at loggerheads over its implementation. Public–private partnerships are preferred by the DA and groups such as Solidarity, but whether the fragile GNU will last long enough for a compromise remains anybody’s guess.
It is reported that latest NHI proposal from the ANC includes forcing medical aid schemes to lower their prices by competing with government – although Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi has dismissed these reports. In any case, medical aid schemes are already increasing their rates as healthcare costs continue to rise in what is an inexorable global trend – fuelled in large part by ageing populations and increases in noncommunicable diseases.
Further on the horizon, there are a host of experimental drugs undergoing testing for obesity treatment, according to a review published in Nature. While GLP-1 remains a target for many new drugs, others focus on gut hormones involved in appetite: GIP-1, glucagon, PYY and amylin. There are 5 new drugs in Phase 3 trials, expected variously to finish between 2025 and 2027, 10 drugs in Phase 2 clinical trials and 18 in Phase 1. Some are also finding applications beside obesity. The GLP-1 agonist survodutide, for example have received FDA approval not for obesity but for liver fibrosis.
With steadily increasing rates of overweight/obesity and disorders associated with them, this will continue to be a prominent research area. In the US, where the health costs of poor diet match what consumers spend on groceries, ‘food as medicine’ has become a major buzzword as companies strive to deliver healthy nutritional solutions. Retailers are providing much of the push, and South Africa is no exception. Medical aid scheme benefits are giving way to initiatives such as Pick n Pay’s Live Well Club, which simply offers triple Smart Shopper points to members who sign up.
Another promising approach to the obesity fight is precision medicine, which factors in many data about the patient to identify the best interventions. This could include detailed study of energy balance regulation, helping to select the right antiobesity medication based on actionable behavioural and phsyiologic traits. Genotyping, multi-omics, and big data analysis are growing fields that might also uncover additional signatures or phenotypes better responsive to certain interventions.
3. AI tools become the norm
Wearable health monitoring technology has gone from the lab to commonly available consumer products. Continued innovation in this field will lead to cheaper, more accurate devices with greater functionality. Smart rings, microneedle patches and even health monitoring using Bluetooth earphones such as Apple’s Airpods show how these devices are becoming smaller and more discrete. But health insurance schemes remain unconvinced as to their benefits.
After making a huge splash in 2024 as it rapidly evolved, AI technology is now maturing and entering a consolidation phase. Already, its use has become commonplace in many areas: the image at the top of the article is AI-generated, although it took a few attempts with the doctors exhibiting polydactyly and AI choosing to write “20215” instead of “2025”. An emerging area is to use AI in patient phenotyping (classifying patients based on biological, behavioural, or genetic attributes) and digital twins (virtual simulations of individual patients), enabling precision medicine. Digital twins for example, can serve as a “placebo” in a trial of a new treatment, as is being investigated in ALS research.
Rather than replacing human doctors, it is likely that AI’s key application is reducing lowering workforce costs, a major component of healthcare costs. Chatbots, for example, could engage with patients and help them navigate the healthcare system. Other AI application include tools to speed up and improve diagnosis, eg in radiology, and aiding communication within the healthcare system by helping come up with and structure notes.
4. Emerging solutions to labour shortages
Given the long lead times to recruit and train healthcare workers, 2025 will not likely see any change to the massive shortages of all positions from nurses to specialists.
At the same time, public healthcare has seen freezes on hiring resulting in the paradoxical situation of unemployed junior doctors in a country desperately in need of more doctors – 800 at the start of 2024 were without posts. The DA has tabled a Bill to amend the Health Professions Act at would allow private healthcare to recruit interns and those doing community service. Critics have pointed out that it would exacerbate the existing public–private healthcare gap.
But there are some welcome developments: thanks to a five-year plan from the Department of Health, family physicians in SA are finally going to get their chance to shine and address many problems in healthcare delivery. These ‘super generalists’ are equipped with a four-year specialisation and are set to take up roles as clinical managers, leading multi-disciplinary district hospital teams.
Less obvious is where the country will be able to secure enough nurses to meet its needs. The main challenge is that nurses, especially specialist nurses, are ageing – and it’s not clear where their replacements are coming from. In the next 15 years, some 48% of the country’s nurses are set to retire. Coupled with that is the general consensus that the new nursing training curriculum is a flop: the old one, from 1987 to 2020, produced nurses with well-rounded skills, says Simon Hlungwani, president of the Democratic Nursing Organisation of South Africa (Denosa). There’s also a skills bottleneck: institutions like Baragwanath used to cater for 300 students at a time, now they are only approved to handle 80. The drive for recruitment will also have to be accompanied by some serious educational reform to get back on track.
5. Progress against many diseases
Sub-Saharan Africa continues to drive declines in new HIV infections. Lifetime odds of getting HIV have fallen by 60% since the 1995 peak. It also saw the largest decrease in population without a suppressed level of HIV (PUV), from 19.7 million people in 2003 to 11.3 million people in 2021. While there is a slowing in the increase of population living with HIV, it is predicted to peak by 2039 at 44.4 million people globally. But the UNAIDS HIV targets for 2030 are unlikely to be met.
As human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programmes continue, cervical cancer deaths in young women are plummeting, a trend which is certain to continue.
A ‘new’ respiratory virus currently circulating in China will fortunately not be the next COVID. Unlike SARS-CoV-2, human metapneumovirus (HMPV) has been around for decades, and only causes a few days of mild illness, with bed rest and fluids as the primary treatment. The virus has limited pandemic potential, according to experts.
From the NHI Act to major advances in HIV prevention, it has been another busy year in the world of healthcare. Spotlight editors Marcus Low and Adiel Ismail recap the year’s health developments and identify some key trends in fewer than 1000 words.
For a few weeks in June, it seemed that the surprising outcome of South Africa’s national and provincial elections would usher in far-reaching political and governance changes in the country. As it turns out, some significant changes did come, but not in the health sector.
Rather than a new broom, it was déjà vu as Dr Aaron Motsoaledi returned as Minister of Health – he was previously in the position from 2009 to 2019. In both Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal – the country’s most populous provinces – ANC MECs for health from before the elections kept their jobs. The ANC garnered well under 50% of the votes in both of those provinces and nationally and accordingly had little choice but to form national and provincial coalitions.
To be fair, five of the nine MECs appointed after the elections were new, but these changes were mainly in the less populous provinces.
Policy-wise, the trajectory also remains much as it was a year ago. Two weeks before the elections, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act into law (though most of it has not yet been promulgated). While Ramaphosa has since then asked Business Unity South Africa (BUSA), the country’s largest employer association, for new input on NHI and while talk of mandatory medical scheme cover had a moment in the headlines, there is no solid evidence that the ANC is open to changing course – if anything, Motsoaledi has doubled-down in the face of criticism. The Act is being challenged in various court cases.
The sense of discord in healthcare circles was further deepened in August when several organisations distanced themselves from Ramaphosa’s updated Presidential Health Compact. The South African Medical Association, the South African Health Professionals Collaboration—comprising nine associations representing over 25 000 public and private healthcare workers—and BUSA all declined to sign the accord. BUSA accused government of “unilaterally” amending the compact “transforming its original intent and objectives into an explicit pledge of support for the NHI Act”.
Away from these reforms, a trend of health budgets shrinking year-on-year in real terms continued this year. This funding crunch, together with well-documented shortages of healthcare workers, has meant that even well-run provincial health departments are having to make impossible trade-offs – that while governance in several provincial health departments remains chronically dysfunctional. This was underlined by a landmark report published in July that, among others, highlighted leadership instability, lack of transparency, insufficient accountability mechanisms, and pervasive corruption. New reports from the Auditor General also didn’t paint a pretty picture.
Gauteng health has again been in the headlines for the wrong reasons. The provision of cancer services in the province remains mired in controversy as the year comes to an end, with plans to outsource some radiation services to the private sector apparently having stalled, despite the health department having the money for it. A deal between the department and Wits University was also inexplicably derailed. With high vacancy rates, serious questions over senior appointments, reports of corruption at Thembisa Hospital, and much more, it seems that, if anything, governance in the province has gotten even worse this year.
In a precedent-setting inquest ruling in July, Judge Mmonoa Teffo found that the deaths of nine people moved from Life Esidimeni facilities to understaffed and under-equipped NGOs “were negligently caused by the conduct of” former Health MEC Qedani Mahlangu and former head of the provincial health department’s mental health directorate Dr Makgabo Manamela.
Outside our borders, Donald Trump’s election victory in the United States is set to have far-reaching consequences. A return of the Global Gag Rule seems likely, as does major changes to the Food and Drug Administration, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and the National Institutes of Health – the latter funds much HIV and TB research in South Africa.
Away from politics and governance, the biggest HIV news of the year came in late June when it was announced that an injection administered every six months was extremely effective at preventing HIV infection. It will likely be several years before the jab becomes widely available in South Africa.
Another jab that provides two months of protection per shot is already available here, but only to a small number of people participating in implementation studies.
It is estimated that around 50 000 people died of HIV related causes in South Africa in 2023 and roughly 150 000 were newly infected with the virus (reliable estimates for 2024 will only be available in 2025). A worrying one in four people living with HIV were not on treatment in 2023. There was an estimated 56 000 TB deaths and around 270 000 people fell ill with the disease. While these HIV and TB numbers have come down dramatically over the last decade, they remain very high compared to most other countries.
There are some concerns that a new TB prevention policy published in 2023 is not being universally implemented. We have however been doing more TB tests, even while TB cases are declining – as we have argued, this is as it should be. Also positive, is that a massive trial of an TB vaccine kicked off in South Africa this year.
With both TB and HIV, South Africa is making progress too slowly, but we are at least trending in the right direction. With non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, there are unfortunately signs that things are getting worse. As we explained in one of our special briefings this year, our diabetes data in South Africa isn’t great, but the little we have painted a worrying picture. As expected, access to breakthrough new diabetes and weight loss medicines remained severely constrained this year, largely due to high prices and limited supply.
Ultimately then, at the end of 2024, South Africa is still faced with chronic healthcare worker shortages, severe governance problems in several provinces, and major uncertainties over NHI – all while HIV and TB remains major public health challenges, though a shift toward non-communicable diseases is clearly underway.
By Dr Reno Morar, Director: Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, Nelson Mandela University
Dr Reno Morar
Johannesburg, 20 November: As Director of the newly established Medical School in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Nelson Mandela University, I am honoured to lead South Africa’s tenth and youngest medical school. Our medical students exude an infectious spirit of hope and enthusiasm as we progress toward graduating our first cohort of Mandela Doctors in 2026.
As we navigate our journey at the medical school and within the Faculty, our goal is to successfully graduate composite health professionals who are equipped to serve our communities.
This journey is inextricably linked to a larger national goal: achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) for South Africa.
With the signing of the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act into law, South Africa stands at a pivotal moment in its healthcare journey. Achieving UHC promises equitable access to quality healthcare for all South Africans, regardless of income or location. But transforming this vision of UHC into reality requires much more than policy reflected in the NHI, it calls for robust planning, thoughtful resource allocation, and, above all, collaboration across sectors.
Our nation’s medical schools and higher education and training institutions are essential to the UHC journey in their support of South African’s human resources for health strategy. This strategy provides a foundation for advancing universal health coverage by ensuring healthcare professionals are appropriately trained to meet the demands of a redefined healthcare system.
These institutions play an instrumental role in building a workforce ready to support the NHI system. Lessons from our response to the recent COVID-19 pandemic have already shown us the power of unity; as we move forward, this spirit of collaboration between the public and private sectors will be crucial in shaping a resilient and inclusive healthcare system that can achieve UHC.
The NHI Act sets out to provide universal access to quality healthcare services, bridging disparities and delivering equitable access to essential services for all South Africans. However, the path to UHC is about more than access, it requires quality, efficiency, and sustainability across a restructured healthcare landscape.
The government’s role here is pivotal – responsible leadership, resource allocation, and effective oversight are critical to building public confidence. This transition poses complex governance and constitutional challenges.
Implementing the NHI Act requires establishing new accountability mechanisms, redefining roles, and reassessing funding streams. Addressing these structural challenges – especially in under-resourced and underserved regions – demands both strategic mindset and practical capacity to adapt quickly to evolving needs.
Many of South Africa’s rural and township communities face significant shortages in healthcare resources and access to quality services. For NHI to succeed in these settings, dedicated efforts in providing adequate healthcare infrastructure and equipment, staffing, and strong governance and leadership are essential.
Achieving the ambitious goals of NHI without a solid foundation in governance and accountability would be a costly misstep. The success of NHI demands careful, evidence-based planning with clear goals and accountability.
This approach will require decades of commitment, with the understanding that universal healthcare frameworks often take generations to mature fully. NHI will not be a quick fix, but with meticulous preparation, it has the potential to become a sustainable, far-reaching health system intervention.
Government planning must also account for the rapidly changing landscape of healthcare needs and technology. South Africa’s healthcare system must prepare not only for current demands but also for future challenges, including digital healthcare infrastructure and data security.
Protecting patient information and ensuring uninterrupted services is paramount in a digital age where data breaches are a constant risk. Recent experiences with cybersecurity issues in the National Health Laboratory Services underscore the importance of proactive measures in this domain.
The pandemic has taught us the power of unity in times of crisis. During COVID-19, South Africa’s public and private healthcare sectors demonstrated resilience, adaptability, and a shared commitment to public health. This partnership was instrumental in resource-sharing, patient care, and vaccine distribution.
It serves as a powerful reminder that as the NHI system is implemented over the next 10 to15 years, the system will benefit from a collaborative model where the expertise and resources of the private and public sectors complement each other in the public interest and wider community access.
Collaboration between the public and private sectors must focus on expanding healthcare infrastructure, enhancing service delivery in underserved areas, and integrating innovative technologies for more efficient patient care. By working together, public and private sectors can foster a healthcare environment that maximises strengths and mitigates gaps in service.
To sustain the implementation of the NHI system, South Africa needs healthcare professionals equipped to handle both the scope and scale of this vision. Medical and health professions education must adapt and evolve to meet these challenges, training future healthcare providers not only in clinical skills but also in adaptability, empathy, and resilience.
At Nelson Mandela University’s Faculty of Health Sciences, we prioritise these qualities, embedding community-based learning and problem-solving into our curriculum to prepare graduates for a diverse and demanding healthcare landscape.
Students experience firsthand the disparities within South Africa’s healthcare system, and this allows our students to develop the necessary understanding of the realities their future patients face.
Our programme equips them to work in a wide array of settings – from rural clinics with limited resources to state-of-the-art urban facilities. This holistic training ensures our graduates are capable of addressing the multifaceted healthcare challenges with the empathy and innovation necessary to serve our communities across South Africa.
The journey toward UHC and the implementation of NHI system is both inspiring and challenging. It is a bold declaration of South Africa’s commitment to affordable universal access to quality health care services, healthcare equity – and must be approached with open eyes and a steady hand.
Our success will depend on a combination of strategic planning, effective governance, and a commitment to collaboration across sectors.
South Africa has a unique opportunity to build a healthcare system that is equitable and resilient. By prioritising these foundational steps, we can pave the way for a healthcare system that genuinely serves all South Africans, one that fulfils the promise of our constitution and reflects the spirit of our democracy. The future of our healthcare system is within our hands, but only if we approach it with responsibility, collaboration, and a deep commitment to the well-being of all our people.
It will be an intensely proud South African moment when we graduate our first 45 Mandela Doctors from our medical school in 2026! As South Africans, we also want to be proudly South African about the health system we build for and with our people.
By Prelisha Singh, Partner, Martin Versfeld, Partner and Alexandra Rees, Senior Associate, Webber Wentzel
Robust contestation on how to best fulfil the fundamental rights of South Africans complements and strengthens our constitutional democracy. Recent debate has centred on the effective realisation of the right to access healthcare, which the state is required progressively to realise for all South Africans, irrespective of their background and income.
The right to access healthcare came into sharp focus on 15 May 2024, when President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act into law, prompting the initiation of constitutional challenges by concerned stakeholders. The most recent of these was filed on 1 October 2024 in the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria by the South African Private Practitioners Forum (SAPPF), represented by Webber Wentzel.
According to the government, the NHI Act is intended to generate efficiency, affordability and quality for the benefit of South Africa’s healthcare sector.
An assessment of South Africa’s current healthcare landscape shows a stark difference between private and public healthcare. The country has a high quality, effective private healthcare offering. However, it is currently inaccessible to the many South Africans who cannot afford private care or medical aid payments. Public healthcare, on the other hand, is understaffed, poorly managed and plagued by maladministration and limited facilities.
The NHI Act has been positioned as the vehicle to address this disparity and a desire to take steps towards achieving universal healthcare in South Africa. But a closer reading of the Act highlights numerous problems with its content and implementation design. The absence of clarity, detail or guidance contained in the Act makes it impossible to assess how the Act will actually be implemented (or, by extension, what the effects of this implementation will be).
This is particularly concerning given that years have passed since the economic assessments, on which the Act was based, were undertaken. Also problematic is the apparent lack of consideration given by the government to submissions made by affected stakeholders during multiple rounds of constitutionally required public participation.
SAPPF underscores these deficits in seeking both to have the President’s decision to assent to the Act reviewed and set aside, and the Act itself declared unconstitutional.
President Ramaphosa was obliged, in terms of sections 79 and 84(2)(a) to (c) of the Constitution, not to assent to the Act in its current form. Section 79 requires the President to refer back to Parliament any bill that he or she believes may lack constitutionality. In this case, it is difficult to conceive how the President, or any reasonable person in the President’s position could not have had doubts regarding the constitutionality of the NHI Bill. The decision by the President to sign unconstitutional legislation into law, instead of referring it back to Parliament for correction, is also irrational.
The President’s duty properly to have referred the NHI Bill back to Parliament is affirmed by the fact that the President is enjoined, by section 7(2) of the Constitution, to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.
SAPPF’s application demonstrates that the NHI Act, in its current form, infringes upon the rights to access healthcare services, to practice a trade, and to own property. Patients, including those using private healthcare, will be forced to use a public healthcare system that currently fails to meet its key constituents’ needs. Practitioners’ rights to freedom of trade and profession will be infringed upon, and the property rights of medical schemes, practitioners, and financial providers will be unjustifiably limited.
On its current text, the Act could make South Africa the only open and democratic jurisdiction worldwide to impose a national health system that excludes by legislation private healthcare cover for those services offered by the state – notwithstanding the level or quality of case.
Concerns regarding the rights infringements in the NHI Act are exacerbated by its lack of clarity and the fact that crucial aspects of its implementation are relegated to regulations, with no clear guidance provided in the Act itself.
For example, section 49 provides that the NHI will be funded by money appropriated by Parliament, from the general tax revenue, payroll tax, and surcharge to personal tax. However, this stance does not reconcile with section 2, which provides that the NHI will be funded through ‘mandatory prepayment’, a compulsory payment for health services in accordance with income level. Crucially, the extent of the benefits covered by the NHI’s funding mechanism and its rate of reimbursement, which impact affordability and the provision of quality healthcare, remain unknown.
The Act is, at best, a skeleton framework, seemingly assented to in haste. It is conceptually vague to the extent that the rights it seeks to promote will, in fact, be infringed if implemented. This renders the Act irrational, in addition to its other constitutional defects.
The NHI Act represents a radical shift of unprecedented magnitude in the South African health care landscape. This should be – and is required to be – underpinned by meaningful public participation, up-to-date socio-economic impact assessments and affordability analyses and final provisions that provide a clear and workable framework for implementation.
It is not sufficient for these vital issues to be addressed after the fact. Further engagements with stakeholders and the solicitation of proposals by the government cannot be used to splint broken laws. Collaborative engagement, including the solicitation of inputs for meaningful consideration, should take place during the law-making process, not after its conclusion.
A shift of the magnitude proposed by the Act, absent compliance with the structures of the law-making process and adherence by the state to constitutional standards, including rights protections, would be detrimental to the entire healthcare sector – public and private – and not in the best interests of patients and practitioners.
Notwithstanding the legal contestation surrounding the Act, it and the laudable goals underlying it can also be a watershed. The achievement of universal health coverage is an opportunity for the different stakeholders in South Africa’s healthcare system to meaningfully collaborate and inform well-supported, factually informed, rational and genuinely progressive legislative steps by the state.
Given the questions surrounding the Act and the evident need it seeks to address, the space exists for healthcare stakeholders to align around shared goals and values. They can leverage their available resources to design a healthcare system that serves all of South Africa’s people fairly and equitably, using the significant existing resources invested in the country’s healthcare sector.
To see National Health Insurance primarily as the setting up of a state-run medical aid scheme risks underplaying its massive potential to restructure how public healthcare services are organised and funded, and with that, its potential to boost the delivery of primary healthcare services in South Africa, argues Russell Rensburg.
It has been 30 years since South Africa emerged from centuries long racial suppression and state-sponsored apartheid and took her place among the community of sovereign, democratic nations. In 1996, we adopted the final Constitution, in which we committed to addressing the injustices of the past and building a society based on social justice and human dignity. That promise is carried through in the Bill of Rights, which under Section 27 includes the right to healthcare, food, and social assistance. The right to access healthcare services, like many socio-economic rights, is subject to the state taking reasonable legislative and other measures within available resources to progressively realise the right.
Pursuant to this, the National Health Act, which provides the framework for a structured uniform health system within the country, was adopted in 2003. The Act assigns the minister of health the obligation to ensure the provision of essential health services, which must include primary healthcare services. But, to date, no health minister has published regulations that define the exact scope of essential health services, nor has a framework been offered for the development of a defined package of care to be provided within the resources available.
The result is that, despite significant investments in public funded healthcare, the system and the services it provides has largely been shaped by existing infrastructure inequity. Put differently, health investments have typically gone where the infrastructure exists, rather than being guided by providing a defined package of primary healthcare services in all the places where it is most needed.
In the near term, the health system faces several immediate challenges. Per capita spending is declining. Spending is biased towards hospitals, with 42% of the national health budget spent on central and provincial hospitals. Another problem is that health service planning and budgets do not sufficiently account for our changing demographic profile – life expectancy has increased and we have a growing population of young people.
The National Health Insurance (NHI) Act is an attempt to address this through the establishment of the national health insurance fund, which initially will be the only purchaser of public sector healthcare services. Broadly, the NHI aims to pool funds to provide access to good quality, affordable healthcare services for all South Africans and certain foreign nationals, based on their health needs and irrespective of their socio-economic status.
This shift marks a substantial change from the existing setup, where 85% of the national health budget is allocated at the provincial level. In South Africa, the share provinces get of the national budget is largely determined by the equitable share formula. The health component of the formula includes a number of variables to account for healthcare need, including premature mortality (as a proxy for unmet need ), multi index deprivation (to account for social determinants of health such as poverty ), income, housing, and measures of sparsity (to account for rurality). But the biggest driver of funding is historical utilisation, which shapes resource allocation at the provincial level. The result is that the funding is overly focused on providing care under the existing systems, rather than progressively expanding access to healthcare, and boosting access to primary care in particular.
In short, NHI represents a major shift away from this paradigm by which provinces receive healthcare funds via the equitable share and based on historic spending.
How it will work
Under NHI, the public sector will budget according to level of care, initially prioritising the district health system through the establishment of district health management offices. These offices will support contracting units for primary care, which will comprise a district hospital, community health centres , primary healthcare clinics, and ward based outreach teams as well as provisions for integrated practice comprising GPs, pharmacists, dentists, and rehab professionals (occupational health, physiotherapy, and speech therapy). The district health management offices will be responsible for the achievement of health outcomes in districts.
In theory, this will allow for healthcare priorities to be shaped at the district level and for services to be more responsive to the healthcare needs of communities. For example, a district like OR Tambo could prioritise more resources towards addressing maternal mortality by expanding ante-natal services or developing responses to address the health access gaps for older people in rural areas. In urban districts, like the City of Johannesburg, it could prioritise expanding access to reproductive health services by contracting in private health providers who are better placed to respond to the needs of working women. Ultimately, such a shift to a more responsive and more localised health system could also help increase uptake of TB and HIV prevention and treatment services across the board.
How to get the ball rolling
Reorientating our health system towards primary healthcare will be a difficult and time-consuming process, given the complex nature of health systems. But, there are things we can do right away to get things moving. We don’t have to wait for full implementation of NHI.
The current District Health Programme Grant can be expanded to enable provinces to increase primary healthcare services. The grant currently focuses on resourcing the country’s response to HIV, which seems to have reached a plateau with fewer people initiated on treatment. Contracting in private providers using this grant could improve service accessibility for testing, reproductive health services and routine healthcare for the working poor. Indeed, contracting in non-state healthcare providers, such as healthcare NGOs, pharmacies, and GPs, can significantly improve the patient experience and help build the public trust that is needed for NHI. As we repurpose the District Health Programme Grant, we can also start building the systems we will need for the district health management offices envisaged under NHI, thus helping to ease the transition when it comes.
The biggest immediate opportunity however lies in improving the accessibility and acceptability of district health services for the working poor. A study by the Bureau of Market Research at UNISA estimated that around 75% of working people in South Africa earn less than R6 000 a month. The current structure of publicly funded primary healthcare services do not respond to their routine needs, which include accessing family planning, seeing a GP when ill, a dentist to address oral health issues or access to rehab services. Apart from meeting the needs of these people, expanding service points, particularly in urban areas, can also improve disease surveillance through increased testing, and increased uptake of HIV prevention and treatment services.
There are more areas where we can make progress now that will ease the transition to NHI. For example, the current National Tertiary Services Grant, with an allocation of R15 billion, can be used to support a deep dive into what services our hospitals offer, what resources they are allocated and why, and how all of that lines up with the health need in our districts. The data isn’t currently there to really know whether we are getting value for money from our public hospitals. As with primary care, we need to get a clearer understanding of the need and start re-engineering the system so that we are in a better position to meet that need as we start implementing NHI.
Ultimately then, it is limiting to think of NHI exclusively as the establishment of a state-run medical aid scheme – as it is often portrayed in the media. A public discourse dominated by debates over the future of medical schemes risks obscuring the substantial potential NHI offers for improving and restructuring how public health services are organised and funded. The reality is that with NHI, we have an opportunity to shift the focus of our healthcare system toward primary healthcare and in the process to make our health system much more efficient and equitable. It is imperative that we do whatever is needed to deliver on that potential.
*Rensburg is Director of the Rural Health Advocacy Project.
Note: Spotlight aims to deepen public understanding of important health issues by publishing a variety of views on its opinion pages. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily shared by the Spotlight editors.
The National Health Insurance Act does not deal with the systemic issues that cause high prices and inequity in medicine access, and government is not listening, argues Fatima Hassan.
As the department of health lunges forward with implementing a system of National Health Insurance (NHI), with business and other interests trying to thwart that, what lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic can help us to ensure health equity for all – for both users of the public and private health sectors?
A few key themes come to mind: market power, secrecy, transparency, accountability, timely access, and affordability.
COVID’s lessons
The human cost of COVID-19 globally was at least fourteen million people who died in just two years. In South Africa, COVID was the leading cause of death in 2020 and 2021, outstripping deaths due to other diseases in those years.
To mitigate the COVID pandemic and to move forward, we needed vaccines. Then, the creed of intellectual property fundamentalism preached to us by the ultra-wealthy and by pharmaceutical corporations was to tell us to monopolise and privatise the manufacture and supply of publicly created vaccines and medicines, while relying on voluntary market measures – not effective regulation or compulsory measures – to ensure access. That creed failed us.
At the time, agreements with private manufacturers for the supply of vaccines were entered into, and at the request of a very powerful industry, treated as a secret. The Health Justice Initiative (HJI) litigated to compel disclosure, and we won.
Our analysis showed a set of one-sided terms, including conditions that required Non-Disclosure Agreements with significant advance payments without legal obligations on suppliers in terms of delivery volumes or dates. The contracts provided sweeping indemnity terms, limits on international redistribution/donations, and overly broad intellectual property protections. We also found that in several instances, South Africa overpaid for vaccines compared to higher middle income countries.
Where we live
We live in a country with worsening health outcomes, a high burden of HIV and TB, and alarmingly high levels of gender-based violence.
Politically, we have had multiple health ministers in the space of just five years – even during a pandemic – due in part to corruption allegations and now, a new Government of National Unity (GNU). We have an unaccountable rotating door system for appointing ministers, deputy ministers, and health Portfolio Committee members, seriously blurring the Legislature’s oversight function. This is not good governance.
We have outstanding laws and regulations that could address some of the “now” issues but which are not being prioritised. For example, we are still subject to an apartheid-era Patent Law that is deferential to patent seekers, resulting in over patenting or evergreening. Vested interests, we believe, are blocking key amendments that would limit patent protection in favour of the public interest.
We do not have a robust local, properly state-subsidised health manufacturing industry in South Africa, often making us reliant on external manufacturers. We have xenophobia seeping into our health system, where patients have been attacked in state hospitals because of their nationality.
And on top of all of that, we have growing reports not just of provincial health product stockouts but also reports of widespread health sector tender corruption, and targeted assassinations of whistleblowers. Finally, given, among other things, our outdated patent system and inability to reign in medicine prices, our medicine costs are astronomical, needlessly (even when compared to other BRICS countries).
The NHI as the GNU’s test (and ours)
It is in this context, that even before the 2024 national elections, NHI has become a lightning rod of disagreement even within the GNU, including for business, creating a hostile climate for civic engagement. Sadly, the political gamesmanship over NHI especially at the Executive level, is coming across as unaccountable, arrogant, and non-engaging. This will not build our health system. In this debate, government has rarely admitted it made any mistakes so that is why it was surprising that in a recent Bhekisisa interview, the health minister conceded that restricting NHI basic health services (so non-emergency care) to South African ID holders may be self-defeating for public health. He said that that is a “mistake” that needs to be “rectified” in the NHI Act.
NHI and state-led procurement
The NHI Act envisages a single state procurement entity for all health products for NHI users (as selected by a benefits committee). In theory, this should provide greater negotiating power and leverage.
With the lessons of COVID and more recently Mpox, we can expect that may not be so. Even under NHI, there will be a scramble for much needed supplies, where South Africa will have to compete on the international market for often scarce and high priced supplies.
Thus, addressing the pharmaceutical industry’s power, and by virtue of that, the global and local medicine patent (reward) system and its abuse matters – but we need to do it now, not incrementally or at some later or undefined point.
For the NHI to financially sustain itself (and assuming here for a moment that it has sufficient funds to begin with), it will have to either overthrow or better regulate the current medicine over-patenting and pricing transparency system to survive, failing which, NHI money could dry up just on health products and medicine costs alone.
At present, South Africa on average pays more for medicines than comparator countries. Business is eerily silent about this aspect in its critique of NHI. Since medical schemes will continue to operate under NHI for some time, one would expect greater concern about the disproportionate use of scheme members’ resources in this respect too, from business.
On top of this, under an apartheid era drafted law (the Patents Act), South Africa is still also doling out patents allowing companies to evergreen their patents on several essential medicines including for TB and HIV, and cancer with limited regulatory and legal repercussions.
While the HJI vaccine procurement judgment should be having far-reaching implications, not just for the next set of pandemic procurement negotiations, but also for substantial state-led procurement due to take place under NHI, we would be naïve to think that the industry and powerful global and local actors in the pharmaceutical sector will change its ways for the better just because South Africa is implementing NHI.
The NHI, we are told, will be based on the principles of “universality and social solidarity” and will “unify” our health system. Yet, if we focus on just one aspect included in the Act – the medicine access system – it is a far cry from the promised system of unification. This is because it is drafted in a way that by our count and reading, creates at least four medicine access systems, operating in parallel (NHI for NHI users; Medical Schemes for scheme beneficiaries – while schemes are permitted to operate under NHI (could be decades); complementary cover via insurance coverage for NHI users; over the counter via out of pocket payments/insurance coverage for non-NHI users such as foreign workers, foreign students, resident non-nationals, etc.).
Either way, for all of its admirable “equity” intent, NHI in South Africa will be fully dependent on the global medicines access market whether we like it or not because we are not operating in a neutral, access friendly global system. Nor are we operating in a context where the executive has any real, public, and committed plan to drive down medicine prices before or while NHI is implemented – and without business interests interfering in the execution – it is leaving that totally to the market, to whimsical unenforceable donations and voluntary business conduct. That is not sustainable.
The President is fully aware of how the latter affected our vaccine access and procurement strategy and costs in the COVID-19 pandemic. What is he going to do about it?
NHI and “top-ups”
Under NHI, the Act will allow top-up products and complementary cover via insurance offerings to presumably fill the gap for those health products, services or medicines that the state may not select or include in the NHI Formulary because of affordability constraints. So how will those complementary cover products and medicines be priced and regulated? Will the current imperfect and expensive system, called the Single Exit Price System, for non-state medicines be used?
Imperfect, because in South Africa, public sector medicines prices are largely determined by the bids companies submit in response to advertised government tenders. In the private sector, companies are free to launch a medicine at any price, although once launched, annual price increases are regulated – so that every drug in the private sector has a single exit price. In rare cases, excessively high medicine prices have been challenged using competition law, but this is the exception.
There have been moves toward reference pricing – where maximum prices for specific medicines would be determined by reference to prices for that medicine in a basket of other comparable countries – but none of several rounds of regulations proposing such a system have been implemented, mainly because pharmaceutical companies usually litigate against the state to prevent it from implementing such a comparator system – in other words, like elsewhere, while we face exorbitant medicine costs, we also face powerful corporate lobbies that do not want proper transparent systems for setting medicines prices. This only serves a profiteering agenda.
NHI and medicine access questions
Just on the narrow point of medicine access under NHI there are critical issues that need to be clarified. They include the following:
Whether we can be guaranteed transparency and information, including about the deliberations of the various NHI ministerial advisory, benefit and selection committees, and procurement structures under the NHI – or will we have to litigate every access to information request, as we did in COVID?
How will the NHI Fund (Office of Health Products Procurement) negotiate with the global pharmaceutical industry without, for example, the bullying we witnessed in the COVID-19 pandemic?
And specifically for medicines and health products:
Will manufacturers be permitted to sell to health providers other than the state? If so, how will this be done, and how will the maximum price be determined or regulated?
Which medicines and health products will be covered under NHI benefits as part of the NHI Formulary and how will the price of those not covered (top-ups/complementary cover) be regulated?
What role will the current private sector pricing system play including the single exit price system – and how and when will it be amended?
As our country pushes ahead with the NHI, there are some immediate concerns like these that we believe will affect implementation.
Of course, we all support the vision of a unified, equitable health system. But aspirations aside, the NHI Act does not deal with the systemic issues that cause high prices and inequity in access. Instead of investing effort into systems that control prices better at the outset, it is investing in systems to deal with the consequences of unaffordable drugs, hoping for self-correction, all while deferring to powerful vested interests including business lobbies that have the President on speed dial.
Regulatory bodies and civil society actors can only take on the tip of the medicine pricing iceberg – the question to the President is, while the Executive dithers on amending keys laws including the Patents Act, under NHI: who exactly will fight for every single patient and for every single medicine?
Since the NHI Bill was signed into law, the President (and his Cabinet) are now duty bound to take constitutional steps to remedy the deficiencies in the NHI Act, and at the very least, to listen to all sectors, not just business.
*Hassan is director of the Health Justice Initiative. This piece is drawn from her key note address at the 2024 Annual David Sanders Lecture in Public Health and Social Justice hosted by the University of Western Cape’s School of Public Health and Peoples Health Movement South Africa.
Note: Spotlight aims to deepen public understanding of important health issues by publishing a variety of views on its opinion pages. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily shared by the Spotlight editors.
